Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Jim, could not the precise sidereal degree of the pole of the ecliptic have the symbolic potency for an angular mundane point?

SteveS wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:57 pm Jim, could not the precise sidereal degree of the pole of the ecliptic have the symbolic potency for an angular mundane point?

The pole of the ecliptic has no zodiacal degree in the same way that the north pole of Earth has no specific geographic longitude.

The ecliptic poles have all simultaneous longitudes.

Jim wrote:

The ecliptic poles have all simultaneous longitudes.

And what are their longitudes?

SteveS wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:57 pm Jim wrote:

The ecliptic poles have all simultaneous longitudes.

And what are their longitudes?

There is NO specific zodiacal longitude. The poles have ALL 360° of longitude at the same time. They are the only two points on the celestial sphere than can never have any specific longitude.

OK Jim, thanks. I may come back with some quotes about the pole of the ecliptic for your opinions but if you tire of my continued questions---just tell me and I will shut-up with further questions.

Steve, longitude is measured around the rim of a circle. The pole is a point at the center of the circle. There is no longitude in the center because you can't measure around a point. It has no width, length nor height.

Just keep asking yourself, what is the longitude of the North Pole.

Let me try another approach with me trying to understand this issue from some of my old notes to ask you more questions.

Here are some quotes pertaining to carved figures found in the temple of Hathor in Dendera, Egypt with recognizable Zodiacal figures in a 360 degree circle (The Hathor Zodiac).

The zodiac is about 8 feet across, carved in relief on hard stone. The constellations are arranged in a spiral and the symbolic figures are marching counterclockwise in the diurnal directions of the stars as seen from the earth. Recognizable mythological figures for the constellation near the pole are a jackal for the Little Bear, an ox-leg for the Great Bear, and a hippopotamus for Drago. The zodiac is in a circle at the center of which is our north pole. But the zodiac also shows the pole of the ecliptic, located in the breast of the hippopotamus, or star group for Drago. To some astronomers this explains the spiral formations of the constellations. The mythological figures representing the constellations are entwined in two circles---one around the north pole and one around the pole of the ecliptic. Where these two circles intersect marks the point of the equinox, or due east. In other Egyptian charts of the constellations there appears the figure of a hawk-headed man holding in his outstretched arms a line which ends against the figure of the ox-leg, representing the constellation of the Great Bear. According to Zaba this line held by the hawk-headed man indicates the meridian through our north pole. But Professor Livo Stecchini points out that Zaba did not notice that this line always ends at a very specific position, at times with an arrow point, which divides the seven stars of the Great Bear into four and three. This line, says Stecchini, does not indicate the meridian passing through the north pole, but the meridian passing through the pole of the ecliptic. In Stecchini's opinion, the ancient Egyptians not only understood the precession of the axis of the earth but considered the true meridian the one passing through the pole of the ecliptic of the solar system. Lockyer added that the Babylonians had distinguished the pole of the equator from the pole of the ecliptic.

So, I assume with these above quoted words, there is a zodiac degree for the pole of the ecliptic. What weighs on my mind--if Stecchini is right with his opinion the ancient astronomers considered the true meridian as the one passing through the pole of the ecliptic in our solar system---could this point in the zodiac possibly prove-out mundane astrological value? And, if an astrologer wanted to do some mundane research with this zodiacal degree with the meridian line running through the pole of the ecliptic-- do we now have modern tools to calculate this possible zodiac degree for the pole of the ecliptic? I am assuming this meridian line for the pole of the ecliptic is slowing moving with the vernal point through the zodiac? But my assumptions mean nothing since my mind struggles with understanding/seeing certain astronomical principles. When you have time Jim, I would appreciate your thoughts.

Steve, have you ever played with a gyroscope? They resist being turned, preferring to remain upright while spinning. BUT, as they slow down, the axis around which they spin wobbles.
The earth is a giant gyroscope (sorta, but let's not quibble) which is kept spinning by the same forces that keep gyroscopes spinning. It resists being turned, but there are massive forces pushing it around. So it wobbles. We can never know where the pole is. We can only know where it's been. That's because we can't predict (at least not yet) exactly which forces are at what strength as they push the earth around.

So the earth wobbles on it's axis. Always has, always will. Geographers have chosen a spot that's more or less equidistant from all the wobble, and they call that the geographic North Pole, and hang all longitude and latitude off that, so they can talk to each other.

There's also a magnetic North Pole, which also wobbles. Sometimes it points at Polaris, but it moves in more or less a circle, depending on the shifting magnetic tides in the molten core of the earth. Again hard to predict, but we know where it has been. This is what your compass points at. We can give you longitude and latitude for where this has been. Right now its moving toward Russia from Canada at about 34 miles a year. It also wobbles in an about 80km circle every day, so it's moving in a spiral.

There's also a geomagnetic pole, that has to do with the solar wind and aurora borealis.

Different stars have been used as the "pole star" over the centuries. We use Polaris right now. Centuries ago Kochab and Pherkad were used. in 3000 BC, Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star. The Pole star and a compass were used by seamen to locate themselves in the sea. Since most astronomy and astrology observation are closely linked to navigation, that's probably why Stecchini was looking at that idea. Those statues were about navigation, just like Fagan's coffin lids. Helping the soul get to the door of the world beyond death
The takeaway here is the Pole Star is affected by precession, just like the zodiac. And precession is caused by the earth's wobble on it's axis. It's not some mystical system, and it doesn't have anything to do with a mundane sphere.

The mundane sphere is based on where you are on the earth. Your horizon, your zenith. The zodiacal sphere is based on the earth's path around the sun and is canted 23.4° from the mundane sphere. The earth is tipped on its axis as it orbits the sun. That's why the mundane sphere and the zodiacal sphere don't aline. This isn't some secret ancient Egyptian concept. It's just basic geography and astronomy and always has been.

Oh, and we use Polaris because it's the closest star right now to the pole and the pole has no zodiacial coordinates because it's the center of the circle and the centers of circles have no coordinates derived from that circle. Take a compass to the North Pole and it just spins.

SteveS wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:58 am

Recognizable mythological figures for the constellation near [emphasis added JAE] the pole...

So, I assume with these above quoted words, there is a zodiac degree for the pole of the ecliptic.

Your interpretation is wrong. The key word in the quoted sentence above is NEAR. Objects NEAR the pole have locations, but EXACTLY at the pole does not. You can be 0°00'01" (or less) from the pole as long as you're not 0°00'00.000000000" on it.

The pole of the ecliptic could be expressed in right ascension and declination but not in longitude and latitude because the ecliptical pole is not a defining feature of the equatorial coordinates (RA & Dec), but is a defining feature of the ecliptical system. Similarly, the North Celestial Pole (extension of Earth's geographical pole) can be expressed in celestial longitude and latitude because they have nothing to do with it, but it can't ever have a position in right ascension.

I know we're talking of the ecliptic pole, but let me give you a more familiar example: Earth's geographic pole points most closely to the star Polaris, which we call the Pole Star. Polaris has a longitude (3°51' Gemini), and it also has Right Ascension - currently 44°17', because it isn't exactly the pole. It's declination is 89N21. If it were two-thirds of a degree farther north, at 90N00, it suddenly wouldn't have a right ascension because there would be not way to tell one RA from another: They all meet at 90N00 and 90S00.

Now let's switch back to ecliptic poles. This Wikipedia article is a good enough start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_pole
In thee section "Ecliptic Poles," it shows maps of the region where the N and S poles are located. It also gives their right ascension and declination. RA is always exactly 6:00:00 or 90° for the South and 18:00:00 or 270° for the North, the RAs of the solstices. (Can you visualize why this is so? The ecliptic crosses the equator at the equinoxes, RA 0° and 180°, and the positions of the ecliptic poles in equatorial terms are at 90° angles to this.)

The declination of the N ecliptic pole, as of 2000, is given as 66°33'38.55" N, the same as the Arctic Circle and the co-latitude of the Tropic of Cancer.

But if you put 18:00:00 RA and 66°33'38.55" N in the fixed star position calculator in Solar Fire, it won't be able to calculate ecliptical coordinates - celestial longitude - because suddenly it will be ALL celestial longitudes at once.

What weighs on my mind--if Stecchini is right with his opinion the ancient astronomers considered the true meridian as the one passing through the pole of the ecliptic in our solar system---could this point in the zodiac possibly prove-out mundane astrological value?

There is no zodiacal longitude for it. Or, to put it differently, the zodiacal longitude of the ecliptic poles is EVERY DEGREE OF THE ZODIAC AT ONCE. It's the entire zodiac.

Again, look at a globe of Earth - physically get one and look at it - and ask yourself, "What geographic longitude is the north pole?"

I am assuming this meridian line for the pole of the ecliptic is slowing moving with the vernal point through the zodiac? But my assumptions mean nothing since my mind struggles with understanding/seeing certain astronomical principles.

A minute with an Earth globe probably will make all those complexities simple.

Thanks Jim, I will study your above words hoping I can eventually understand more about this 'pole of the ecliptic.'

Jim, at your link https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1968, post Ap 1, 2018 2:56 AM, about half way through this post, Kay Cavendar wrote this:

The pole of the ecliptic plane is the pole from
which the Sidereal Zodiac is calculated and a "must know" position for
siderealists.

Can you elaborate on Kay's above words? If Kay is correct-- what is this "must know" position? Is this position only expressed in Right Ascension?

I can't speak for exactly what Kay meant. At best, it was very casually written and obscure. It seems, though, that she is just saying that the poles demarcate where the ecliptic is. (At least, that's a technically correct statement that she might mean.) She seems to be saying that what needs to be known is where in the 26,000-year cycle of rotation about it the Earth's pole is currently located (though she stated it the other way around).

I should also mention that we do know the POSITION of this pole. That's not obscure at all. It's just that, of all the ways we can identify its location, the ONE way we cannot use is zodiacal longitude.

Thanks Jim for your thoughts on this thread.

A link to a thought provoking article on the Pole of the Ecliptic by Robert Bauval:

http://robertbauval.co.uk/articles/articles/anchor.html

Articles like this are terribly frustrating, primarily because the scholarship is so uneven. One is drawn into excitement - one wants to believe it's a discovery - then one encounters poor scholarship, technical errors, and a stream of authorities cited who are exactly the names that are dragged out over and over (often from over a century before when Egyptology and other scholarship were far poorer than now).

Even more frustrating is that there still may be something to the premise. (Or am I being too optimistic?) I'd have to take days to pour through this minutely and double check things. There are clear errors but those errors ultimately might not be fatal. (I simply can't tell yet.)

But as an example... take things the article says about the Denderah zodiacs. Fagan decisively dated these as depicting scenes in 17 AD. (See Chapter 12 of Astrological Origins.) It's not just that the construction is signed with the insignia of the Emperor Tiberius, but that the calculations have inherent clues to the age. Of the three planetary distributions, one has the planets in the signs of their exaltation, placing the carvings later than 786 BC, just as a second has them in the signs of their rulership. The hieroglyphs disclose that it isn't even quite Sidereal, but calculated in the Babylonian-inspired Greek Tropical zodiac that placed the VP at 8° Aries. The third series of planets turns out to be the planet positions for the commencement of the Egyptian New Year on April 16, 17 AD (among other marvelous things he uncovered).

Using this to argue for the premise of the article is at best misdirection (i.e., digression), and most likely somebody just not knowing what they are talking about.

Or at least that's what it seems from the time I could give it on the way home today.

Jim wrote:

Even more frustrating is that there still may be something to the premise. (Or am I being too optimistic?) I'd have to take days to pour through this minutely and double check things. There are clear errors but those errors ultimately might not be fatal. (I simply can't tell yet.)

I clearly understand this 'frustration' Jim, I feel the same frustration. The main reason I posted Bauval's link when I recently ran across it—Kay Cavendar a well respected Sidereal Astrologer among her peers made the statement that she felt it important Sidereal Astrologers know the point in the Sidereal Zodiac where the 'Pole of the Ecliptic' was located without giving a reason—WHY? I am guessing Kay felt it might bear astrological fruit. I have my doubts if we have the technology to determine the precise Sidereal Zodiac degree for the pole of the ecliptic. And more so, even if the pole of the ecliptic was some kind of 'true meridian' for Planet Earth, its math is not plugged into today's astrological programs. All I really know is certain alternative Egyptologists with knowledge of celestial astronomy (not astrology) have pointed out the Ancient Egyptian culture left pictographs showing a certain small star constellation (Drago) for the pole of the ecliptic, hence its implied importance to ancient Egyptian sky observers (astronomers). Also, we see other older cultures pointing to Drago as a big symbolic deal.

Jim wrote:

Using this to argue for the premise of the article is at best misdirection (i.e., digression), and most likely somebody just not knowing what they are talking about.

I understand Jim, its no big deal to me, only a curiosity as a Sidereal Astrologer knowing Fagan took a lot of his inspiration from the Ancient Egyptians with him rediscovering the true Sidereal Zodiac.

The North and South Poles of the ecliptic are the only two points in the celestial sphere that have no sidereal on kitchen. It's the same as asking what the geographic longitude of the North Pole is. All Geographic longitudes meet and converge at the North and South Korea graphic poles. Similarly, all ecliptica longitudes meet and converge and disappear at the North and South polls of the ecliptic.

Steve, can you find that Kay C. quote? I started a search through her archive and she uses the word "pole" hundreds of times, mostly about the Earth's pole (or its equivalent, the North Celestial Pole), but also uses the term loosely as "poles" of this and that. I found one passage where she was alluding to the fact that different stars were near the ecliptical pole. But I couldn't persist long enough to find the one you mentioned.

If you can find it, I'll take a look at it and see if I can figure out what she's after.

Jim wrote and asked:

If you can find it, I'll take a look at it and see if I can figure out what she's after.

Jim, at your link https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1968, post Ap 1, 2018 2:56 AM, about half way through this post, Kay Cavendar wrote this:

The pole of the ecliptic plane is the pole from
which the Sidereal Zodiac is calculated and a "must know" position for
siderealists.

Thanks. Here is a longer passage for context:

THE ORDER OF THE DRAGON: THE ECLIPTIC PLANE & POLE
THE NORTH POLE OF ECLIPTIC PLANE is fixed in DRACO The Dragon
halfway between zeta NODUS I and delta NODUS II, and within 7' of the
nebula N.G.C. 6543. The pole of the ecliptic plane is the pole from
which the Sidereal Zodiac is calculated and a "must know" position for
siderealists. The pole of the ecliptic plane is also the axis of the
PRECESSIONAL CYCLE of 25,920 years, the immutable pole in the center of
the turning wheel of ages--the circle of pole stars. Likewise, the
ecliptic plane, measured from the earth's orbit which forms the
backbone of the zodiac, does not vary significantly over millennia in
reference to the fixed stars (although it too ultimately varies). The
Dragon is astronomically the Guardian of the Axis of Heaven, as
mythologically it is the Guardian of the Garden of Hesperides with its
"tree" of golden apples. The Dragon was "Custos Hesperidum, the
Watcher over the golden fruit; this fruit and the tree bearing it being
themselves stellar emblems..." (Allen's Star Names, p204).
Presently, epoch 2000, the equinoctial and solstitial colures
(reckoned from the Earth's rotational pole in the Equatorial System)
cross near Polaris, the North Star, the celestial marker of the Earth's
pole. In any age the colures will cross at whatever star marks the
north pole. The COLURES are two great circles at right angles to each
other on the celestial sphere running through the two equinoxes and the
two solstices and each through the north and south pole. Because the
poles change with precession, and thus also so do the equinoxes and
solstices, the colures must also change (at the rate of one degree
every 71.6 years). Additionally at this time but for a few centuries
only, the solstitial colure runs between Draco's stars--the FIRST and
SECOND NODES or KNOTS, near the central axis of all the celestial
sphere, the North Pole of the Ecliptic Plane. That would mark this as
a pivotal time.

Comments in the next post.

Kay Cavender seems to be speaking almost poetically - certainly mythically - in exploring where the ecliptical pole points in the sky. A few parts benefit from remarks:

The pole of the ecliptic plane is the pole from which the Sidereal Zodiac is calculated and a "must know" position for siderealists.

This is a strange sentence. Most importantly, there is nothing intrinsically sidereal about this because - this is important - the pole of the ecliptic in exactly the same way is the pole from which the Tropical zodiac is calculated. That is, it is a point that defines where the ecliptic itself falls. (She's wrong that it's "calculated from" the pole - usually it's the other way around, the pole is calculated from the ecliptic - but she's exactly right that the ecliptic itself and the ecliptic's poles are intrinsically and necessarily connected. In the same way, the Earth's poles and its equator are intrinsically and necessarily connected, reciprocally defining each other.

But there is nothing specific to the Sidereal zodiac about this. It's equally true of the Tropical zodiac. Therefore, it's initially puzzling why she would call it a "must know" position for siderealists.

One thing is clear, though. Her use of "position" does not mean a zodiacal position. She didn't say that we need to know the zodiacal longitude of this pole. (As I've mentioned previously, the north and south ecliptical poles are the only points in all of space which mathematically can have no zodiacal longitude.) Kay is using these words differently - more generally and, I think, mythically - to back her symbolic exploration of the starfields around the poles.

The Dragon is astronomically the Guardian of the Axis of Heaven, as mythologically it is the Guardian of the Garden of Hesperides with its "tree" of golden apples. The Dragon was "Custos Hesperidum, the Watcher over the golden fruit; this fruit and the tree bearing it being themselves stellar emblems..." (Allen's Star Names, p204).

This is all interesting stuff worthy of reflection. A lot is hidden here... but it's a digression from the present conversation.

Jim wrote:

Kay Cavender seems to be speaking almost poetically - certainly mythically - in exploring where the ecliptical pole points in the sky.

From one of my favorite books, 'Sacred Science' The King Of Pharaonic Theocracy, by R.A. Schwaller De Delubicz:

In our definition, myth is the means of expression employed by sages who teach the expression of natural facts (laws) inexpressible in words.

Jim wrote:

This is all interesting stuff worthy of reflection. A lot is hidden here...

Jim, this pleases my heart! It tells me you are willing to probe further into this “stuff” which is very close to my heart. I will later post some other things about my perceptions/learnings about Giza from other alternative scholars who are not astrologers but who also knows this is all 'interesting stuff worthy of reflection'. John Anthony West believes I am closer to the truth with my heart beliefs Giza holds some astrological keys set to a time for an astrologer to see things. Jim, if John West is right--there is only one Sidereal Astrologer presently living on this Planet who could possible see into Giza with astrological/astronomical eyes/mind to figure out WTF/Why with Giza, and of course that is YOU. Robert Bauval used the Skyglobe program to see his premise Giza with his link article. If you need this program--let me know--I would not know how to use it without some guided instructions.

The pole of the ecliptic plane is the pole from which the Sidereal Zodiac is calculated and a "must know" position for siderealists.

Jim wrote:

This is a strange sentence.

Indeed! Is Kay still living. Matthew and I use to communicate with Kay through e-mails many moon ago. It sure would be nice to get Kay into this thread.

As of a few months ago she was still alive, I am told.

If anyone has a regular address or e-mail for Kay, please PM me. My old e-mail for Kay is no longer active.

From Myth And Symbol In Ancient Egypt, by R.T. Rundle Clark, 1959

Conclusion from Clark's above book:

The basic principles of life, nature and society were determined by the gods long ago, before the establishment of the Pharaonic kingship. This epoch---'Zep Tepi'---'the First Time'---stretched from the first stirring of the High God in the Primeval Waters to the settling of Horus upon the throne and the redemption of Osiris. All proper myths of ancient Egypt relate events or manifestations of this epoch for the 'First Time.'
Anything whose existence or authority had to be justified or explained must be referred to the 'First Time'. This was true for natural phenomena, rituals, royal insignia, the plans of temples, magical or medical formulae, the hieroglyphic system of writing, the calendar---the whole paraphernalia of the ancient Egyptian civilization.

'Underlying all ancient Egyptian speculation', as R.T. Rundle Clark has observed, is the belief that time is composed of recurrent cycles which are divinely appointed...There is furthermore a governing moment amongst all these cycles and epochs—the 'genesis event' that the ancient Egyptians called Zep Tepi, the 'First Time'.
Zep means 'Time', Tepi means 'First'. Page 206 “The Message of the Sphinx” by Graham Hancock—Robert Bauval.

Bauval and Hancock demonstrate with interpretation (hieroglyph translations) of ancient Egyptian texts, Giza is the “Splendid Place of the First Time” and the 3 Pyramids (Orion's Belt-Taurus) of Giza is a record of the 'First Time' using the Sidereal Zodiac with the Precession Cycle, along with the Sphinx (Lion) representing the 'First Time' beginning with the precessional age of Leo. According to Bauval and other alternative scholars the 'Pole of the Ecliptic' has a lot to do with reading/understanding this 'First Time' with the Sidereal Zodiac, and Kay Cavender a respected siderealist implies the same with posted writings in an earlier link on this thread. The only thing I know for sure is Bauval is reading this 'First Time' at Giza close to accurate using Fagan/Bradley's SVP with the Sidereal Zodiac, but never does Bauval/Hancock reference the work of our Sidereal Zodiac fathers (Fagan/Bradley) in any kind of context. But, Bauval/Hancock demonstrate this 'First Time' occurred on a Spring Equinox around c. 10,500 BC with the beginning precessional age of Leo. Fagan/Bradley has proven to me without a doubt our modern epoch will reach a half-precessional cycle from Bauval's Giza 'First Time' 2369 AD, the beginning of the precessional age of Aquarius.

I will bow to Jim eventual astronomical conclusions with his probe into Bauval's Giza conclusion about this 'Pole of the Ecliptic.' The astronomy of this matter is way over my head! But I will say this: If this 'First Time' at Giza is true--- a brilliant ancient architect sage may have left us siderealists and/or future siderealists some kind of World Scope; or it could be just my Neptune Imagination—if so—that is ok with me. I love my Neptune Imagination—it has served me well in life.

In Asclepius 111 of the Hermetic Texts, Hermes (the Egyptian wisdom god Thoth) ask his pupil: “Did you not know, O Asclepius, that Egypt is made in the image of heaven"... This question is intriguing, for Asclepius was associated by the Greeks with Imhotep, the legendary sage and astronomer architect who designed the first step-pyramid at Saqqara. The Ancient Egyptians said Thoth was responsible for the writings of sacred astronomical books kept at Heliopolis which dealt with the secrets of the motion of the stars. Pg 196, The Orion Mystery, by Robert Bauval.

When Bauval discovered the 3 Pyramids on Giza were representing the 3 Stars of Orion's Belt, he then started experimenting with the new astronomical program Skyglobe which had precessional math plugged into it which covered 15,000 years of past history. Bauval started to watch the precessional movement of Orion's Belt slowing going back into history. When Bauval got to c. 10,500 BC with Skyglobe he made another important discovery. He discovered Orion's Belt according to its apparent motion with the Precession Cycle was stationed at its lowest attitude on the Meridian with the constellation of Leo (Sphinx) rising in the east. But most important, Bauval noticed with the precessional movement of the Stars, the Milky Way was aligned with the Nile River at Giza, and the 3 Pyramids were in perfect alignment with the 3 Belt Stars of Orion's Belt. Hence, the reason Bauval feels Giza is astronomically representing something to do with Ancient Egypt's primary Myth for 'Zep Tepi' the 'First Time' which only the Precessional Cycle decodes. If Bauval is correct in his beliefs with his discoveries about Giza, then Giza may eventually hold some astrological keys for the Sidereal Astrologer. Bauval Giza discoveries with the precessional cycle strongly implies in c. 10,500 BC the Sidereal Zodiac with 'Zep Tepi' the 'First Time' mirrored perfectly everything below on Earth, “As Above So Below”---and that the ancient Egyptian astronomers were architecturally designing all their great Monuments with the 'image of heaven' (key stars), and that Hermes is so right: Egypt is made in the image of heaven. None of Bauval's Giza re-discoveries could have been proclaimed without the high technology of astronomical computer programming with precessional math which is happening as Earth is approaching the zero beginning point of the Precessional Age of Aquarius in 2369 AD. And, without Fagan/Bradley's great work with Sidereal Astrology in the one and only Sidereal Zodiac, we would not know where exactly the SVP is astronomically located according to the precession of the equinox. Also, with Bradley's SVP---Sidereal Mundane Astrology would be impossible to correlate.

Kay Cavender may indeed be on to something with her thinking the Pole of The Ecliptic may become important to siderealists with their main guide of the Sidereal Zodiac. And Robert Bauval along with other alternative scholars may be dead-on with their work—the Ancient Egyptian astronomers seemed to think the Pole of the Ecliptic was an important astronomical point which according to Bauval was incorporated into the architecturally design of the Great Pyramid on Giza.

Steve, doesn't the Wikipedia article Orion correlation theory, cover most, if not all, of this? There are lots of references there.

Jupe asked:

Steve, doesn't the Wikipedia article Orion correlation theory, cover most, if not all, of this? There are lots of references there.

I have not read the Wikipedia article Jupe, but will check it out later, thanks for the link. I read "The Orion Mystery" and then Bauval's follow-up book "The Message of the Sphinx" which really put Giza precessional astronomy together nicely. I will later post Bauval's final words to his book "The Message of the Sphinx," it is very interesting.

The last few sentences of Robert Bauval's book 'The Message of the Sphinx' A Quest For The Hidden Legacy of Mankind.

What instruments might lead to the recovery of 'unseeable and undefinable' secrets concealed at Giza?
Our research has persuaded us that a scientific language of precessional time and allegorical astronomy was deliberately expressed in the principle monuments there and in the texts that relate to them. Throughout this investigation we have tried to stick to the facts, even when the facts have been very strange.
When we say that the Sphinx, the three Great Pyramids, the causeways and other associated monuments of the Giza necropolis form a huge astronomical diagram we are simply reporting a fact. When we say that this diagram depicts the skies above Giza in 10,500 BC we are reporting a fact. When we say that the Sphinx bears erosion marks which indicate that it was carved before the Sahara became a desert we are reporting a fact. When we say that the ancient Egyptians attributed their civilization to 'the gods' and to the 'Followers of Horus' we are reporting facts. When we say that these divine and human civilizers were remembered as having come to the Nile Valley in Zep Tepi—the 'First Time'--we are reporting a fact. When we say that the ancient records tell us this 'First Time' was an epoch in the remote past, thousands of years before the era of the Pharaohs, we are reporting a fact.
Our civilization has had the scientific wherewithal to get to grips with the many problems of the Giza necropolis for less than only two centuries, and it is only in the last two decades that computer technology has made it possible for us to reconstruct the ancient skies and see the patterns and conjunctions that unfolded there.
The Giza monuments are a legacy for Humankind, preserved almost intact over thousands of years, and, outside the privileged circles of Egyptology and archaeology, there is today a broad-based expectation that they might be about to reveal a remarkable secret. That expectation may or may not prove to be correct. We are left with an enhanced sense of the tremendous mystery of this amazing site—a sense that its true story has only just begun to be told. Looking at the awe-inspiring scale and precision of the monuments we feel, too, that the purpose of the ancient master-builders was sublime, and that they indeed find a way to initiate those who come after—thousand of years in the future—by making use of the universal language of the stars.
They found a way to send a message across the ages in a code so simple and so self-explanatory that it might rightly be described as an anti-cipher.

I may add where there is a mathematical astronomical point with the Sidereal Zodiac-- there is usually a clear astrological language for the Sidereal Astrologer with bodies in the Sidereal Zodiac. I don't know if Bauval is correct in his theory the ancients incorporated the astronomical point of the 'Pole of the Ecliptic' at the location of Giza in the epoch of c.10,500 BC. But I do know for sure the ancients were using the Sidereal Zodiac for their main star codes at Giza. If it had not been for Robert Bauval's work and a respected Sidereal Astrologer Kay Cavender, I would not have been conscious about a possible important astronomical point in the Sidereal Zodiac—the 'Pole of the Ecliptic'. But, at the same time if the Sidereal Astrologer can't calculate this possible astronomical point—it can't be researched for possible astrological purposes.

Nobody can calculate a zodiacal longitude for the poles of the ecliptic in any zodiac. I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. This is as absolutely certain as saying that any point exactly on the ecliptic has 0°00' latitude, as certain as saying

This isn't an opinion. It's locked into the basic definition of the ecliptical coordinate system. There is, indeed, a POSITION of the two poles, but not an ECLIPTICAL (zodiacal) position. That is, one can point right at the pole and say, "It's exactly there," but the "there" will be the one spot that has no longitude.

I can tell you the zodiacal position of the ecliptic poles as soon as you can tell me the geographic longitude of Earth's north pole. (That's a trick answer since the point is that Earth's north and south poles have no longitude.)

PS - You also keep speaking of "the pole of the ecliptic" as if there were only one. There are two, a north pole and a south pole. It would be more accurate to speak of the "poles of the ecliptic" (plural) or the North Pole of the ecliptic (if you only mean the northern one).

PPS - The curse of understanding this stuff . I wish I could give sufficient description that you can create a picture in your head of how this works. It's incredibly simple to understand once you get the pictures. I don't do graphics (don't have the skills or tools and would rather empower people to generate all necessary pictures in their heads), but maybe the first picture on this page will help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_ ... ate_system

Jim wrote:

There is, indeed, a POSITION of the two poles, but not an ECLIPTICAL (zodiacal) position. That is, one can point right at the pole and say, "It's exactly there," but the "there" will be the one spot that has no longitude.

Jim, can you see the geometric possibility in Bauval's link article about the 'pole of the ecliptic' I posted, that the ancient architect for the Great Pyramid (GP) may have with its design pointed with "position" the GP at the north 'pole of the ecliptic'? Therefore, anchoring the GP to the north 'pole of the ecliptic'?

Jim wrote:

The curse of understanding this stuff .

Indeed, I understand Jim. But I do appreciate your input time—it helps me understand "this stuff" better. Thanks for your link on the ecliptic coordinate system---excellent.

Steve, the people who built the plaza at Giza may well have oriented it to the pole of the ecliptic that was valid at the time. That doesn't mean they had any knowledge or understanding of precession or anything else or that they were trying to leave any message "for us" or anybody else.

They built things by laying them out using the tools they had. They wanted straight walls and walkways. They knew how to use a level, probably made of a bowl of water, and how to float a metal needle in that bowl to show them where north (magnetic north!) was so one wall of their garden was running the same direction the other wall was.

Builders were not trying to communicate any ancient secret. They were trying to build good strong straight buildings and level plazas so the priests didn't fall over a corner while performing some ritual.

They weren't orienting anything to the pole of the ecliptic. They were using magnetic north. Magnetic north pointed a different place than it does now because of precession but they didn't need to know that. They weren't using the north star. If there were astrologers at the time, they were using Sidereal astrology because they were using the actual stars. They were also using the equinoxes and solstices for things like marking seasons. They weren't confusing the two systems. Remember we talked about how many calendars they had, all marking out anniversaries of different things? They didn't conflate coordinate systems the way we do.

Builders weren't trying to encode secrets in their building. They were just trying to make their buildings straight.

Jupe wrote:

They were trying to build good strong straight buildings and level plazas so the priests didn't fall over a corner while performing some ritual.